Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Even Iranian officials now admit that the US-led sanctions regime against Iran is damaging its economy.

But the pressure has failed in its primary aim: to slow Iran’s nuclear progress. That has become obvious to the US and European officials imposing crippling sanctions, as has the fact that sanctions may have even sped up Iran's nuclear advancement.

A report released today – based on 30 in-depth interviews with Iranian officials, analysts, and businessmen – explains that dilemma and Iran’s determined defiance to Western policymakers, who will conduct a fifth round of nuclear negotiations with Iran in Kazakhstan next week.

The report's conclusions provide a rare glimpse from high levels in Iran of how sanctions have and have not worked, which could directly affect decisions by Western nuclear negotiators, and a US Congress keen on adding more sanctions, but reluctant to offer enough sanctions relief to convince Iran to stop its most sensitive nuclear work.

“It’s critical to understand how massive pain is being channeled and absorbed in Iran, because just sitting there expecting pain to deliver results is somewhat naïve,” says co-author Trita Parsi, president of the Washington-based National Iranian American Council (NIAC), which produced the report.

“Putting pressure is just half of the equation; [US and European officials] have succeeded with that, undoubtedly the pain on Iran is immense,” says Mr. Parsi. “But to channel the pain is a very, very different task.”

THE WRONG INCENTIVE?

Sanctions now include a European oil embargo, exclusion from the SWIFT international banking system that enables Iranian banks to transfer money, and US measures that target Iran’s central bank.

These measures have begun to bite, causing economic isolation and a precipitous fall in both oil revenues and the value of the Iranian currency. But Iran has still added thousands of centrifuges to enrich uranium, and deployed a more efficient, second-generation centrifuge model; stepped up uranium enrichment levels from 5 percent to 20 percent, which is technically not too far from weapons-grade; and moved its most sensitive work to a deeply buried site impregnable to air attack.

Those results so far indicate that pressure is not working, according to the NIAC report, because “escalating sanctions as a [Western] bargaining chip also gives Iran the incentive to advance its program for the same reason.”

One current Iranian official told the NIAC that Western governments expected Iran’s economy to collapse: “Well, now they know that they have failed. If they continue this way, it will just strengthen Iran’s resolve to confront the West.”

Describing regime thinking, a former deputy foreign minister said, “It was obvious to us that the sanctions pressure will increase and … the main target was to weaken the regime, but that compelled us to stay strong, work together, and prove the Western strategy wrong.”

I must agree with Mark. Bombing without occupation will not stop the development of nuclear weapons and occupation when we play pussy isn't a long term victory as we cannot stay long enough to destroy the strangle hold religion holds upon these people... much less change their way of life.

Germany and Japan accepted that they were wrong and the occupations of their nations were short and now they are allies or at the least not pointing guns at us.

The middle east isn't Germany or Japan, they have nothing worth living for and everything worth dying for. You cannot stop such men with anything but total death and destruction which only an occupation can bring... You might also wish to resurrect Hitler, Stalin, Po pot and a few others who did Genocide on a mass scale... As they have the stomachs for such death, I do not.

Hazle Township PA

Username hidden
(7989 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

"Perf: Bombing without occupation does not work."

It depends on what, who, and how often you bomb. Our technology has greatly increased since WWII and Korea.

Pittsburgh PA

Username hidden
(17914 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

Seems to me Cuba once did try to have nuclear weapons.

Admittedly they didn't manufacture them, but still, it almost led to war.

Brooklyn Park MN

Username hidden
(4482 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

Perf: Bombing without occupation does not work. All it does is piss people off. About the only people shock and ah scared the shit out of was our own Air Force Generals. The Japanese bombed the crap out of Pearl Harbor but did not occupy. We bombed the holy crap out of North Vietnam but did not occupy. despite all the bombing we did Germany kept up it's war effort in WW II full steam; until us and the Russians began to take Germany by occupation.

Tulare CA

Username hidden
(1880 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

"Who do we get to dictate that to and who don't we? "

Pretty simple really. We get to dictate it to anybody we feel would be a threat and anybody we can dominate militarily. It all depends on how politically correct we want to be and how much balls we have.

Pittsburgh PA

Username hidden
(17914 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

I didn't say we didn't have a good reason to want them to not have them. I asked why we get to tell anyone they can or cannot.

What if Mexico decided it wanted nuclear weapons? The Bahamas? Cuba? Who do we get to dictate that to and who don't we?

Winter Garden FL

Username hidden
(21507 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

Sorry, I meant incursion. Iran will not be stopped any other way.

As to who we are we to tell another nation what it can or cannot have?

Well, I suppose if we didn't have strategic interest in the area, or allies to protect from public threats of annihilation, or if oil was of no demand, or Iran acquiring nuclear capabilities wouldn't create a nuclear arms race in an already volitle region at a time when were reducing the world's nuclear stockpiles. Your question would have merit, I suppose :).

Username hidden
(17355 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

"Iran will be The US's next "Middle Eastern" invasion. "

We don't HAVE to INVADE either. Do you think Israel would invade Iran? Nope.

Boooommmmbbbb IIIraaaaaan.

Pittsburgh PA

Username hidden
(17914 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

"On one hand, we really don't want them having nuclear weapons. On the other, why do we get to say that another country can't have them? "

That's the liberal side of VAB talking. :-)

We don't HAVE to fight NICE.

Bomb, bomb, bomb....bomb, bomb Iran.

Pittsburgh PA

Username hidden
(17914 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

We don't have the military force to invade them.

We don't have the political will to invade, conquer and rebuild a nation... Both Afghanistan and Iraq have proven this fact very clearly and we had public support for both wars in their onset.

We cannot invade and win in the middle east. We aren't blood thirsty enough to win vrs people who will not stop fighting us until they and their families are dead.

We aren't the soviet union and even Russia/China aren't so blood thirsty as to pick a fight with loser nations like Iran, NK or others who think that their hand full of special weapons mean that they could win a war.